Fifty Shots (revised)

that generally goes unnoticed is: How does one determine what makes a proper person for gun-owning? And how does one determine what makes a proper judge of who makes a proper person for gun-owning? Etc., etc., ad nauseum. And just when has choosing a proper person for gun-owning become as reliable as I think it necessarily should be? As to police officers, who chooses those who become them? And what gives the people who makes such choices the right to make such choices? It's obvious to me the appropriate checks and balances are either inadequate or inappropriately applied. Reminds me a little bit of the IRS agent who is so quick to accuse a taxpayer who's done no wrong. My question there is more like: Why doesn't the taxpayer have the right to audit the IRS agent? And why doesn't the taxpayer get to choose whether whatever the agent provides as proof of whatever is really proof? I.e., when is proof proof? The IRS seems to think it has a handle on that ... when all it does is define proof however it wants. Methinks proof is, like beauty, too often merely in the eye of the beholder. Sorry. I've run off these rails with thoughts of IRS. I guess the connection in my mind is the fact both IRS and (too often) police, like the government in general, do not represent the people they ostensibly serve. (In this context, I view "serve" as a four-letter word, as in "serv." Frankly, it's constipated bullshit.) Oh, well, enough of rant on rant. Other things make me happier. Yours, Chuck